Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I think what you describe is a possible connection with egalitarianism, and perhaps the Marxist view of humanity as well. The idea of all people being equal isn’t really the focus of libertarianism (though it is certainly included), so I guess we’re still searching for a real connection.

Ah, so you believe it’s a matter of valuing the efforts of the common laborer? Again, this speaks more to a Marxist view than anything else. American society has historically held manual labor in a similar light as the Romans, especially during and after the Industrial Revolution. Who does our society adore, admire, and lavish wealth and fame upon? Who holds the power? Not the average construction worker, and not your typical farmer. American society, like Roman society, truly values wealth and prestige, the ability to build mighty commercial empires on the backs of employees. Also, as in Roman society, the average laborer STRIVES to become part of the valued, wealthy upper class and indeed CAN become a member. Do you remember that old John Lennon song, berating American society for exactly that?

“There's room at the top they are telling you still,But first you must learn how to smile as you killIf you want to be like the folks on the hill.A working class hero is something to be.”

Valuing manual labor and the efforts of the common laborer simply for the sake of things in themselves is actually a tenet of Marxism, not American society.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The Great Awakening included a message that no one man or family has any God given right to rule over another man. We are all equal before God. We are all each others' servants. It was in the vain of what our country now holds dear--all Americans have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights, something that was not a part of life in Europe. Each one has the ability to make out of his life what he works for and earns. Each one has a say in the laws we live by. It was certainly NOT about equality of outcomes. It was not about socialism in any sense. Early Americans used a capitalist system to work hard and provide for their families. No one's work was looked down upon as it was in Greek and Roman cultures.

It was not about valuing the work of the "common laborer" a la Marx. It was about each one providing for himself and his family by being busy and working, having enough left over to help those in need. There is no central government here. No strong arm of the government to make everyone the same. It was simply about the responsibility each one had to work and make things better.

Maybe your family admired wealth and prestige, and those who built empires on the backs of the lowly employee, but early Americans during the Great Awakening were learning something different. They were learning their worth before God and that every man had the ability to work hard and make something of himself. No longer was he held down as a matter of class as he was in Europe. He was now free to pursue his own desires and beliefs.

John Lennon is English, not American. His song has nothing to do with American society, but is probably just more blathering by a middle class Englishman who made a success of himself. He said, "The thing about the 'Working Class Hero' song that nobody ever got right was that it was supposed to be sardonic - it had nothing to do with socialism, it had to do with 'If you want to go through that trip, you'll get up to where I am, and this is what you'll be.' Because I've been successful as an artist, and have been happy and unhappy, and I've been unknown in Liverpool or Hamburg and been happy and unhappy."

Neither the song nor his explanation of it makes any sense to me. Neither does your effort to try to plug early American values into Marxism.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I understand the messages of the First Great Awakening, and I never said that it was about “equality of outcomes [or] socialism in any sense.” Rather, I said that your focus on egalitarianism and respect for manual labor as a thing in itself was more Marxist than American. I’m sure you can understand that Marxism can share tenets of thought with other movements and not be the same thing. You do know that socialism and Marxism are two very different things, right?

Hard work in itself is not ultimately valued in capitalism, as you seem to suggest. In capitalism, value is measured in wealth. The whole object of the game is to acquire wealth—maybe to “provide for your family”, maybe to improve your lifestyle, or maybe to build a commercial empire. The currency of capitalism is actual currency, not sweat. If hard work was valued as a thing in itself, it logically follows that hard work alone would produce wealth. We both know that isn’t true; in capitalism, WEALTH is valued, and hard work is just a means to an end. If our system valued “staying busy” as much as you suggest, it would be coal miners and enlisted soldiers receiving all the fame, wealth, and glory. Instead, our system is most generous to politicians, CEOs, successful entrepreneurs, and just about anyone who can sell what they do well for big bucks. This doesn’t make sense to you because you’ve made the easy mistake of confusing a means to an end with the end itself.

The idea of holding manual labor on a pedestal as a thing to be valued in and of itself, irrespective of wealth acquired as a result, is a Marxist concept. Any similarities between that and Christian egalitarianism aren’t surprising. Read Eric Hoffer and you may appreciate the astonishing similarities inherent in all mass movements.

I never said that “Working Class Hero” was about socialism (sometimes I think you read what you want to read, but I digress). I said it was a critique of how we treat the so-called working class hero in American society. This, again, is very different from being about socialism.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I can't believe I am agreeing with Nancy this time! God does work in mysterious ways;-) One small correction for my friend Zach however. America does not really prize financial success anymore. We prize celebrity which does not always occur as a result of success. And then there are so many definitions of success! I hope Nancy, even though a devout Christian who is supposed to love everybody shares my dim view of people like Snooki and the talentless Paris Hilton who are famous for accomplishing little in life..Yet they are admired. Even the jester Donald Trump, is more admired for his celebrity than his business acumen. Would we really care about what the Donald had to say if he didn't make himself such a public fool? How many real estate moguls who are simple family men are there and we care not a whit about?

I think Zach you are confusing respect, and iconic status. In Communist societies they had elevated the factory worker to some sort of iconic status. Whether the Communist bosses were sincere or not is questionable, but the workers were depicted as heroes in monumental art, for example. People to be revered. I believe Nancy is referring to the simple respect that is owed to the average person, regardless of his station in life, which is not only paramount in early American Christian communities, but is also the bedrock of American democracy. Something, in spite of our obvious differences, Nancy and I share. (I know, kinda creepy, eh?) And I give a lot of credit to those early Christians, especially folks like the Quakers for these views. Nothing megalomaniacal about that, or especially deferential to big Government. Just plain folks who respect all in their community. There is a lot to be said for that.

However, even Nancy will have to admit that many Christians have significantly strayed from all that. From being vociferous abolitionists and defenders of progressive legislation like child labor laws to being loudmouthed defenders of intolerance. The progressives still exist among the Christians, except they get drowned out by the loudmouths.

But I hear ya, Nancy. I have been with Mennonites and the Amish in Ohio and Pennsylvania and have nothing but respect for those folks. If all Christians were like them instead of following the foot in his mouth Robertson, we would be so much better off.

PS Just so you know, I don't go around wishing people happy holidays, I wish them a merry Christmas as I understand what December 25 is all about. And you do not have to be a believer to respect the tradition.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zack said,.....American society, like Roman society, truly values wealth and prestige, the ability to build mighty commercial empires on the backs of employees.....-------------------------------------------------Zack, I have been in the position of hiring people to work for me. I valued and admired all of them save just a few. I was working my rear off and they could see that and I think just because of that they worked hard for me. It was an experience in life I have never forgotten. I am no Steve Jobs, but I think I understand what made him go and likewise made the people that worked for him go too.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You are changing the idea of hard work to provide for yourself and your family into "the holding of manual labor on a pedestal." You are trying to make it Marxist when it isn't.

Capitalism is an economic system where the private sector controls the means of production of goods and services. Wealth is what's produced by work--the production of goods and services. Currency is merely a tool to trade wealth. Sometimes it takes sweat to produce wealth and sometimes it takes brains. The end of the pursuit is to trade the wealth you produce for the things you need and want. Selling what you do for big bucks is another way of saying you produce a good or service people are willing to pay a lot for. Does Tiger Woods really deserve all that money for playing golf and endorsing products?

I haven't confused the means with the end. I think you have failed to understand what makes some people more wealthy than others. Neither am I holding manual labor on a pedestal like Marx. I'm saying Christian teaching tells us to work and produce a good or service so that we can provide for ourselves and help those less fortunate. It's simply reality, not the worship of manual labor. If you can do that using your brain rather than brawn, all the better.

Yes, I'm sure that condensing everything to a "mass movement" and thinking you've solved the world through such simplicity is satisfying, but I guarantee you it's also incorrect.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

When we invaded the other Japanese islands, the Japanese were still a formidable fighting force. By the time we reached the home islands, their industry had been crippled and they could no longer secure resources from the Chinese mainland. We had full control of the sea and air. This made surrender inevitable.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

OK 2LT - What makes a fighting force formidable? Did the Japanese have control of the sea and air around Iwo Jima? Did they have good supply lines and reserves? Did Japanese EVER consider surrender to be inevitable?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Fair questions. A fighting force is formidable when it is effective. It is effective when it accomplishes its mission. If the Japanese mission at the end of the war was to prevent U.S. troops from dancing in the streets of Tokyo, it may have been effective in that sense. If the Japanese mission was to mount any offensive against the U.S. or threaten American soil in any way, it was ineffective.

As it turns out, that wasn’t the Japanese mission. Surrender wasn’t an option for the soldiers on Iwo Jima, but it became an option for the Japanese on the home islands, and a rather appealing one at that. As the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 notes:

“By the end of 1943 we had achieved through combat and the augmentation of our forces, such clear cut superiority over the Japanese in all elements of air power that eventual victory was assured…We underestimated the ability of our air attack on Japan's home islands, coupled as it was with blockade and previous military defeats, to achieve unconditional surrender without invasion. By July 1945, the weight of our air attack had as yet reached only a fraction of its planned proportion, Japan's industrial potential had been fatally reduced, her civilian population had lost its confidence in victory and was approaching the limit of its endurance, and her leaders, convinced of the inevitability of defeat, were preparing to accept surrender… By March 1945, when the night incendiary attacks began and the food ration was reduced, [the percentage of the Japanese population that believed defeat was inevitable] had risen to 19 percent. In June it was 46 percent, and just prior to surrender, 68 percent. Of those who had come to this belief over one-half attributed the principal cause to air attacks, OTHER [my emphasis] than the atomic bombing attacks, and one-third to military defeats… Sixty-four percent of the population stated that they had reached a point prior to surrender where they felt personally unable to go on with the war. Of these, less than one-tenth attributed the cause to military defeats, one-quarter attributed the cause to shortages of food and civilian supplies, the largest part to air attack… Early in May 1945, the Supreme War Direction Council began active discussion of ways and means to end the war, and talks were initiated with Soviet Russia seeking her intercession as mediator… Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

I don’t know how this report could be less ambiguous. After reading this, it’s quite clear that the dropping of the bombs was unnecessary.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Japanese staff officers on Iwo Jima:"In the light of the above situation, seeing that it was impossible to conduct our air, sea, and ground operations on Iwo Jima toward ultimate victory, it was decided that in order to gain time necessary for the preparation of the Homeland defense, our forces should rely solely upon the established defensive equipment in that area, checking the enemy by delaying tactics. Even the suicidal attacks by small groups of our Army and Navy airplanes, the surprise attacks by our submarines, and the actions of parachute units, although effective, could be regarded only as a strategical ruse on our part. It was a most depressing thought that we had no available means left for the exploitation of the strategical opportunities which might from time to time occur in the course of these operations."

You provided a US Strategic Bombing report from 1946. (Not terribly useful for making a Go / No-Go decision in 1945).1. The Strategic Bomber guys were ALWAYS claiming that they could win the war single-handed.2. Japan was not Democratic. War dissidents were brutally suppressed. Japanese Army soldiers fought because surrender would endanger their families at home. The moral of the common man did not play much into strategic decisions. If a western army was in control of Japan, they certainly would have surrendered long before Okinawa.

Read up on the battle of Okinawa, where we lost almost 2x the servicemen as we did in Iraq + Afghanistan.

Wiki:"There was a hypnotic fascination to the sight so alien to our Western philosophy. We watched each plunging kamikaze with the detached horror of one witnessing a terrible spectacle rather than as the intended victim. We forgot self for the moment as we groped hopelessly for the thought of that other man up there." Vice Admiral C.R. Brown - Okinawa

"With the impending victory of American troops, civilians often committed mass suicide, urged on by the Japanese soldiers who told locals that victorious American soldiers would go on a rampage of killing and raping. Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, wrote in 2007: "There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide. There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers" to blow themselves up. Some of the civilians, having been induced by Japanese propaganda to believe that U.S. soldiers were barbarians who committed horrible atrocities, killed their families and themselves to avoid capture. Some of them threw themselves and their family members from the cliffs where the Peace Museum now resides."

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Bradley, we’re not talking about Iwo Jima or Okinawa, and I’m not sure why you keep harping on them. We’re talking about the invasion of the Japanese homeland, at a time in the war when things had changed substantially. I’m sure you can understand the difference, and I don’t have to keep reiterating the specifics of exactly why it was different.

I guess you don’t like my source, but that doesn’t change the statistics and facts that it presents. Let’s go ahead and break this down:

1. Japan’s industrial capacity was destroyed. No more resources, including food.2. Most of the population had accepted defeat. Most were delighted to surrender if their Emperor gave the word.3. The Japanese government began pursuing surrender in May 1945.

I don’t know how it could be more clear-cut. Japan was no longer an active threat to the U.S. The Japanese people were war-weary and resigned to defeat. Given this information, the Strategic Bombing Survey’s (a joint operation, by the way) conclusions weren’t exactly a stretch to make.

As for the availability of this information in August 1945, we’ll get to that. First we need to cross the bridge of deciding whether Japan would have surrendered regardless of the atomic bombings. Oh, and by the way, “The Strategic Bomber guys were ALWAYS claiming that they could win the war single-handed.?” Really, Bradley? Atomic bombs ARE strategic bombs. If this survey was just a big load of bomber pilot propaganda, they would’ve inflated the effects of the atomic bomb on the war, not diminished them. Indeed, nearly a fifth of the entire document is spent emphasizing how important it would be in the future to build more atomic bombs so we could keep up with future enemies who acquired atomic technology.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Emperor's Surrender Broadcast:"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."

Wiki:The U.S. military had nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals manufactured in anticipation of potential casualties from the planned invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.

"But they also showed a meanness and viciousness towards their enemies equal to the Huns'. Genghis Khan and his hordes could not have been more merciless. I have no doubts about whether the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. Without them, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Malaya and Singapore, and millions in Japan itself, would have perished." Lee Kuan Yew, Former Prime Minister of Singapore

I"m harping on Okinawa because we were still fighting in Okinawa 45 days before we dropped the bomb. How much has changed in Afghanistan in the last 45 days? Is the Taliban ready to surrender? You might want to give some thought to the "Gladiator" question: Quintus: People should know when they are conquered. Maximus: Would you, Quintus? Would I?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Come on, Bradley, you’re just stalling now ;) or perhaps challenging yourself to see how long you can keep an untenable argument afloat.

The Emperor used that in his address as a pretense of an excuse for surrender. If the atomic bombs were truly the cause of the surrender, Japan would not have been pursuing surrender in May. Why do you keep ignoring the crucial facts I’ve presented? Well, never mind, I guess I know why.

Again, it’s super that the U.S. had lots of Purple Hearts made. It’s also super that the prime minister of Singapore had no problem with dropping the bombs on Japan. Why do you completely dismiss the official U.S. government military survey, complete with statistics and strategic evaluations by the people who were conducting the war, but feel like you’ve found insight in the offhand opinion of the leader of a small Asian island nation? Confirmation bias, perhaps?

By their own admission, the Japanese knew they were conquered. By our own admission, we knew they were conquered. They had no more navy and no more air force. Their industry and land forces had been decimated. They were beginning to starve. No invasion and no atomic bombings were necessary.

The difference between Afghanistan and Japan is that we invaded Afghanistan. You seem to believe that the only three options were (a) invade Japan, (b) nuke Japan, or (c) be obliterated by Japan. The reality of the situation was quite different, I’m afraid.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Hoffers views don’t really conform to the modern political paradigm of “liberal” versus “conservative”, and nor do mine. Many views that both Krauthammer and Coulter hold were not “conservative” one hundred years ago; they tailor their views to the modern social conservative agenda, which in turn gains much of its definition from the constituent-pleasing platform of the Republican Party.

I have read Ann Coulter, and even where we agree fiscally, we disagree on how we arrive there. I do not consider her a serious thinker, but rather a pundit who makes quite a bit of money doing what she does.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I agree ZachAfter my initial comment to you, Peter Calvet joined the conversation and our back and fourth lead me to learn a little more about Hoffer, I find the man intriguing. Not to say that I endorse his philosophies, but he was an independent thinker who's conclusions were not that of any party, but uniquely his own.As for Charles Krauthammer, I get the impression that what you know about the man is more what is said about him on CNBS or MSNBC or CNN, rather than what he himself has to say. He is not your traditional conservative.Ann Coulter was added so as not to leave the impression that it was Krauthammer or nothing.I do find it interesting that you don't think her a serious thinker and then call her a pundit. The definition of pundit is a learned person or an authority.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

James you finally were true to your early statement about learning. Bravo.

I will agree with Zach in that Coulter is not a serious thinker. There are pundits and pundits, James.Not all pundits are deep. Even the lightweight Sarah Palin is considered a pundit, the person who didn't know we had a war in Korea, remember?

I view Ann as a provocateur rather than a thinker. She makes a ton of money by bashing liberals and there are many chumps out there that eat her rants up and buy her books. You can practically feel the insincerity when she speaks. She is as sarcastic as Colbert, except Colbert is a comedian and admits his conservative persona is all an act. Ann Coulter demands to be taken seriously.

My knowledge of Krauthammer is my reading him and listening to him for years. And yes, he is way more serious than Coulter by a mile, but I stand by my earlier comment. He occasionally has valid points to make, but he is too partisan for my taste. I didn't feel the same about William Buckley Jr. or Barry Goldwater, two real conservatives who would probably be hounded out of the Republican Party today. As Zach so aptly put it, times change and the social conservatives today are not the conservatives of yesteryear.

I believe that most labels are practically useless because they serve to divide people into camps, instead of dealing with people's real complexity and finding common ground, We act like sports players on a team except we are all individuals. i can't tell how many times i have been accused of believing in things that i don't just because someone labels me. And then the labels are usually inaccurate. i gladly embrace the "Progressive" label because i believe in progress. There are many progressive people who are conservative, libertarian, Christian, and yes, liberal too. I hate Marxism, and all totalitarian systems. I am not too fond of an oppressive government. Do you know that Bush grew the Federal government and Obama actually shrank the Federal government? Surprised? You should be because there is a (false) narrative that Obama is in favor of bigger and bigger government. But some people don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Obama is all about government service to the greatest number of citizens, not necessarily bigger government, but rather effective government. He embraced drones in combat because they were effective. And the liberals in his party hate the drones because they don't support the war effort in the first place. Conservatives generally support the drones but stay muted because it is not "their guy" doing it. If a Republican were doing it they would cast him as a genius. It's pretty sad that people will not support their President because he isn't part of your team even if you generally agree with what he is doing. Very sad.

i always supported Bush when he did things I liked. His work in Africa was stellar and he doesn't get much credit for what he did, which is more than Obama has done.

i think we should treat everybody as individuals and not a member of a side. We would be a better country for it.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Peter said"James you were finally true to your early statement about learning. Bravo."Thank you Peter, now how about you being true to your earlier statements that Eric Hoffer is not a partisan. Please do not tell me that there are partisans and there are partisans, the way you just did concerning Ann Coulter when you said there are pundits and there are pundits. Pundit has a exact definition it's not wishy washy, there are not pundits in a good sense when you agree and pundits in a bad sense when you disagree. Zach, who made the initial comment, was honest enough to see his mistake, you on the other hand, refuse to admit your mistake when you call Charles Krauthammer a partisan because you disagree with him, then tell me Eric Hoffer is above partisanship because you agree with his ideas.You do this about everything, case in point."I view Ann is a provocateur rather than a thinker."Tell me how a person can come up with arguments meant to provoke an opponent and do so without thinking. You go on to describe those that agree and follow her as chumps.When you speak of her, one can see the hatred dripping from the corner of your mouth.You move on to Krauthammer, you seem to have more tolerance of his right to express himself, but not by much. You say your knowledge of him stems from reading and listening to him for years. He is way more serious than Coulter because he occasionally has a valid point to make, you say.Charles Krauthammer is a Pulitzer prize winning syndicated columnist, has degrees in political science and economics then earned a Doctor of Medicine from Harvard Medical School, all after a diving accident left him a quadriplegic.But because you do not agree with the "few valid points" he makes you label him a partisan in order to diminish his contribution.What galls me is how you go on to say that you believe that most labels are useless because they divide people into camps, instead of dealing with people's real complexities and finding common ground, we act like sports players on a team.All this after you spent the last four comments to me labeling every conservative I mentioned as worthless or useless. Now because you see a comment from me to Zach that is not adverse to knowing more about Eric Hoffer you believe I am ripe to buy your brand of hypocrisy.How stupid you must think people are.Oh, and by the way, progressive is another euphemism for socialism or communism, it dosen't mean progress like you claim. It's like the banner "forward" that Obama used in his campaign, taken right from the socialist playbook.One last thing, I have no idea where you get your "facts" from, but Obama has been the worst, most big government president, this country ever had to endure.He makes me pine for the good old days under Jimmy Carter.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

James, I know you have a little problem with 'facts' but here are some charts you might be interested in. Even though the charts appear on the business section of the New York Times, that Socialist paper, the source for the numbers was the Bureau of Economic Analysis. If you think the bureau is a commie front then we're all doomed because then we just cannot trust any numbers at all and I will just give in to your faith and stop responding to you.

But here they are, the numbers, clearly showing how Obama is shrinking government. If you can't believe your eyes, then you are deeper into the kool-aid than i thought. And you might consider that the people who told you Romney was going to win the election might have been wrong. Not necessarily philosophically wrong, but factually wrong. I am just talking facts here, Not points of view. Because if we can't agree on the basic facts there is no point in discussing philosophical differences.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

PeterYou say you know I have a little problem with facts.How would you know this when you don't know me from a hole in the wall.Your childish and disrespectful manner leaves me one of two choices, sink to your level or ignore you.I choose the latter.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I would attribute the impetus for the Great Awakening to the intellectual force that was the fusion of medieval Christianity and the revival of Classical ideas, otherwise known as the Enlightenment. When the established Christian ideas of the Dark Ages were combined with older Classical ideas during the Enlightenment, this resulted in “dramatic revolutions in science, philosophy, society and politics [that] swept away the medieval world-view and ushered in our modern western world.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) The resulting perspectives on human nature, politics, and philosophy (which were quite varied) provided the framework for the Western world to break free of old organizational systems like feudalism.

Also, forgive me for forgetting in my last post to wish you the absolute best of luck with your eye surgery, and a speedy recovery as well.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The Great Awakening was a religious revival preached by the likes of Billy Graham. It was the preaching of the Gospel using the message from the Bible. It was classic Evangelicalism which calls for being born again through faith in Jesus Christ. It had nothing to do with the Enlightenment, nor Classical ideas. I think the idea that everything evolves from what came before it is holding you back in seeing these things clearly. Here's Jonathan Edwards, a preacher during the Great Awakening:

“Men have a great deal of pleasure in human knowledge, in studies of natural things; but this is nothing to that joy which arises from divine light shining into the soul. This spiritual light is the dawning of the light of glory in the heart. There is nothing so powerful as this to support persons in affliction, and to give the mind peace and brightness in this stormy and dark world. This knowledge will wean from the world, and raise the inclination to heavenly things. It will turn the heart to God as the fountain of good, and to choose him for the only portion. This light, and this only, will bring the soul to a saving close with Christ. It conforms the heart to the gospel, mortifies its enmity and opposition against the scheme of salvation therein revealed: it causes the heart to embrace the joyful tidings, and entirely to adhere to, and acquiesce in the revelation of Christ as our Savior.”? Jonathan Edwards

Sorry Zach, but the early Americans who lived at the time of America's founding were in fact those crazy Evangelicals you all hate so much today. It's just a fact.

“Resolution One: I will live for God. Resolution Two: If no one else does, I still will.”? Jonathan Edwards

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Alas, Nancy, no matter how much you stamp your feet and insist it ain’t so, the inconvenient facts remain still ;) Many Christian Enlightenment thinkers, including John Locke, drew many of their new perspectives on human nature and morality from both Christian and Classical sources. You can call the Great Awakening a “reaction” to the Enlightenment if you like, but it was still something new that came about as a result of the Enlightenment. The tenets that drove the Great Awakening were unlike those popular in medieval Christian Europe, dominated by feudalism, or those popular among the early Christians, who had no problem living under the earthly yoke of the ACTUAL Caesar. This was something new.

If only history would just play along with your black-and-white paradigm…how uncooperative it can be sometimes! ;)

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zach, it seems to be going well but it's a pain wearing a patch and continuously feeling like there is some strange object in my eye--actually there is, a new implanted lens :)

Look, I am getting confused with your chronology. The Enlightenment I know was mainly an eighteenth century phenomena parallel to the Awakening Nancy first wrote about and for which I gave concrete dates: 1730-60. That might have been influenced by someone's enlightenment but I doubt The Enlightment. The dates don't fit. Then you refer to Great Awakening; which (see below)? And where do your other great happenings fit? We've had trouble with that before.

Let me give you McLoughlin's chronology and maybe we can stick to it to avoid confusion. Then you can please tell me your idea of where other events and great happenings fit.

The Puritan Awakening and the Culture Core [first half of the 17th C]

The First Great Awakening, 1730-60

The Second Great Awakening, 1800-30

The Third Great Awakening, 1890-1920

The Fourth Great Awakening, 1960-90(?)

Please also note that "The Puritan Awakening and the Culture Core" is tremendously determinative, at least in my estimation, of those that would come later, not to mention most particularly the, and I'll even capitalize it, The American Phenomenon.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The Age of Enlightenment began “[around] 1650 to 1700. It was sparked by philosophers Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), John Locke (1632–1704), Pierre Bayle(1647–1706), physicist Isaac Newton (1643–1727), and philosopher Voltaire (1694–1778).”

The First Great Awakening “was a Christian revitalization movement that swept Protestant Europe and British America, and especially the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s.”

I’d say the timeframes match up quite nicely, wouldn’t you? Good luck with your eye patch, by the way :)

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

But as I understand it, the thick of it or more common usage places it in the 18th century and France. Why aren't we a bit more specific and be clear about who and what we are talking about when we use the terms; I always try to do it myself. There are the English, Scotish, French and even German Enlightenments, not to mention the Scientific Revolution into which Newton is normally fitted.

There is already enough confusion around here, and as I said above, far too much negativity without letting imprecision and inaccuracy add to both, since often the criticism comes attached to very personal and unique, sometimes even weird, understandings of history.

(Darn, it feels like I have a little stone in my eye :(. )

Oh, and another point I was reminded of by a supposedly learned journal paper I read while waiting this morning that made me very angry. Two Mexican academicians, one a full professor at NYU, wrote that "the vast majority of Mexicans now believe in," and there followed a long list of very sophisticated topics, some of which I don't understand myself. Yeah, right, what "vast majority of Mexicans"? But isn't that what we, you, are all saying all of the time, including that Christianity--who, how many, how--were influenced by those early authors of the Enlightenment? That, btw, is why I go out of my way to try to understand history through the eyes of the common people.

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You told us the Great Awakening was about the idea that “no one man or family has any God given right to rule over another man… Each one has the ability to make out of his life what he works for and earns. Each one has a say in the laws we live by.”

So how is that a refutation of this?

“We owe to [the Enlightenment] the basic model of government founded upon the consent of the governed; the articulation of the political ideals of freedom and equality and the theory of their institutional realization; the articulation of a list of basic individual human rights to be respected and realized by any legitimate political system; the articulation and promotion of toleration of religious diversity as a virtue to be respected in a well ordered society; the conception of the basic political powers as organized in a system of checks and balances; and other now-familiar features of western democracies.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Voltaire:

“What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature.”

Diderot:

“Although a man may wear fine clothing, if he lives peacefully; and is good, self-possessed, has faith and is pure; and if he does not hurt any living being, he is a holy man.”

“No man has received from nature the right to command his fellow human beings.”

Kant:

“Always treat people as ends in themselves, never as means to an end.”

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The Great Awakening was a refutation of the Enlightenment idea that "everything must stand before the bar of human reason and conscience. Enlightenment thinkers affirmed innate human goodness and the intrinsic rationality of the human mind."

The Great Awakening preached the revealed knowledge of God and this is what the people were trusting in. Jonathan Edwards wrote: "I am convinced of the necessity of a revelation, considering how negligent, dull, and careless about a future happiness, I should be, if I was left to discover that happiness by unassisted reason: especially if there were no revelation at all, about what is pleasing to God; how he accepts our services; after what manner he loves his servants; how he will pardon sin, etc."

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I would argue that we got here not because of those programs that libertarians “love to hate”, but rather in spite of them. I understand that debt and Keynesian mechanisms have their place in stimulating an economy, but they absolutely require a foundation of austerity and can easily outgrow that foundation if overused.

The allocation of wealth inevitably spreads wealth. Think about it logically; what good is wealth to the average rich man if he hoards it all in the proverbial mattress? How many wealthy people in our society actually do that? No, they spend and invest their money. They give people jobs (yes, vulture capitalists take jobs, but then again it is their money) and careers, and infuse businesses with capital. No money exists in a vacuum, because without goods or assets to exchange for it, money is useless. Wealth creates economic opportunities, even if the cost of that is the formation of an economic oligarchy.

Remember, also, that the spread of wealth fluctuates in waves. Inevitably, the wealth of the wealthy will diffuse out into the economy and be transferred to the less wealthy who provide them with goods and services. The only way this basic mechanism can be stopped is by government intervention, in the form of laws that suppress small businesses and favor corporations. This is anathema to the laissez-faire advocate.

I’m curious, if the “CBO found no correlation in economic results and the tax rates of the very wealthy,” what makes you think that taxing the wealthy more will be better for the economy?

The trouble with allowing “good government [to] make calls that benefit all in society rather than leaving it up to the altruism of the rich which may or may not advance all of our interests” is that the government may also sometimes not advance all of our interests; after all, government is run by politicians, and politicians have to get elected. This leaves us with an entity that has the same question mark above its agenda as the private sector, only it also has the strongest military in the world on call to enforce its agenda if need be. The inherent danger in this cannot be understated; that is why government must be small.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Regarding “ordinary people sharing in the wealth”, please see my post to Greg above. Ordinary people ultimately DO share in the wealth, especially if they BECOME the entrepreneurs you mentioned. Indeed, “ordinary people” implies a rigid class system and perhaps a monarchy of sorts. The term loses much of its meaning in a system where laws and social pressures do not make it impossible (or even improbable!) for so-called ordinary people to become extraordinary with hard work and business savvy.

What you truly fear, I think, is not the laissez-faire world of libertarianism, but rather corporatism. In corporatism, the natural mechanisms of the free market are interrupted and distorted by government intervention, in the form of laws that suppress small businesses/entrepreneurs and favor corporations. This government intervention, anathema to libertarians, artificially maintains an oligarchy that would otherwise be diluted by the effects of free market mechanisms.

In summary, I hope you won’t conflate corporatism with a truly free market. Libertarians have no more love for corporatism than progressives do.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Yes yes and yes. The bond that progressives have with libertarians is indeed their dim view of corporatism. More and more power to the few at the expense of the many is not a good thing. This is the real stuff of dictatorships, and incipient dictatorships.

But here is where the rubber meets the road, Zach, and it is surely an irony. In order for free markets to work, it is essential to have referees with some serious clout. You see, Adam Smith who was more philosopher than economist believed in the mysterious "invisible hand". And to some degree, it does work. But, and this is a huge but, not always.

In order for the whole enterprise to work one must have a level playing field. And that, unfortunately does not exist except for in the ivory tower of the philosopher. It is hard enough to create a level playing field in our country, but when you add in the whole world, it is virtually impossible. There is just no level playing field anywhere.

So we may look at government as the (almost futile) attempt to level the playing field as much as possible knowing that it will never happen. But the converse is to reduce the power of the referees and just allow the strong to overwhelm the weak, to allow the cheaters to get away with cheating, etc.

Now i will imagine that you are not a big fan of Bernie Madoff, but if you apply laissez faire to its logical conclusion, Bernie Maddoff did nothing wrong. As WC Fields used to say, "Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump." Now that was a funny line but in real life it is dead serious. Without a strong referee system, people will be "free" to lie, cheat, and do whatever they wish with impunity.

I agree that small business is the engine of capitalism and the engine of innovation, not to mention the provider of jobs, but it is obvious to me that the Republican Party hides behind the small business community to advance their pro-corporate agenda. Obama has repeatedly cut taxes for small business but doesn't seem to get much credit for it, but in several of our surveys we found that the non social conservative business owner was very pro-Obama. One of the distorters, as you put it is the effective use of hot button social issues like gay marriage and abortion to get people to vote against their economic interests.

And yes, the government can be clumsy, but that is something that has been built up for years, and hardly the fault of one President. As I told James, Obama is actually shrinking the Federal government but you wouldn't tell that due to all the conservative hand-wringing. Should he shrink the government at a faster pace? Maybe. But we have to be careful to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, and also be cautious that we don't do anything precipitous because of the laws of unintended consequences.

Zach, unless you already have, i would urge you to go to my article, "The Real Job Creators" http://corporationsarepeople.blogspot.com/2012/05/real-job-creators.html and watch the video clip by Nick Hanauer. You don't have to read my blather ;-) Hanauer, a venture capitalist has a dramatically different take on the subject of job creation than his fellow capitalist Romney. Not all venture capitalists are created equal.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I submit to you that your perception regarding criticizing, constructive comments, and distrust is quite subjective. Regarding religion, atheists generally aren’t trying to build a new one, so no help there. As for the moral component, do you really mean to suggest that no one here has offered an alternative way of looking at morality?

Like it or not, you come from a place of strong conservative bias (I have a bias too, of course, but I don’t think it comes into play as much on this field). Thus, you seem to regard just about everything that comes from a progressive viewpoint in its negative extreme. Indeed, Greg and others have in fact proposed solutions—offered alternatives, been constructive—but they are not the kind of solutions that strike your fancy.

I think progressives have more trust in government than the individual because they remember the darker corners of American history a little better than the rest of us. You, as evidenced here, take that awareness and push it to an extreme position (“bad” this, “bad” that). I don’t think most progressives believe that. I do think their analysis of history and economics is flawed, which is why I’m having a discussion with Greg and Peter below.

In closing, let me ask you this: What could be less constructive than painting those who disagree with you into a corner and misrepresenting their position?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"Never mind my active agnosticism, including about material things and scientific laws, and continuous search for more answers."

Xavier,

This active agnostiticm seems to trained on scientific concepts that do adhere to the requirments of critical thinking. These scientific conclusions are based on fair and extensive analysis of the evidence, the premises is falsifiable , and they are repeatable. If I am correct you have invoked quantum effects to cast doubt on established scientific principles that may have run against your ideaological grain. I'm sure if I dug around in the archives I could find such an instance.

Everty time I try to give you insight into what my thought process is, you use it to try to demonize me. What did I say that wasn't correct. Or more the point, have I ever said that I was't proud to be an American and a Texan? Have I not described my areas professional teams as "my beloved Dallas Cowboys or my beloved Dallas Mavericks". Does your level of fealty require that you check your common sense at the door and drink every drop of the koolaid?

It is interesting to me to get at the truth. What you find out is that the truth about anything is either so hopelessly complicated that you will probably never get to the bottom of it or it is portrayed as hopelessly complicated and really is deceptively simple. When I referred to the American Indian Wars, we Americans were taught that Indian were deranged , bloodthirsty savages standing in the way of innocent settlers . We readlily accepted that. But the truth was somewhat different. The story of Custer is a case in point of what historical spin doctors did with the truth.

But here's another thing. You keep bringng up the Christian religion as this glue that has held western civilization together. The question is that IF the premise of the religion is mostly false can one trust that all that you attribute to it is actually deserved?

It's back to Santa Claus. This is a myth. But we believe that childrens belief in the fable can modify their behavior. The question is "is that true"? Or are there other forces at work. There is no reason demonize a person because they say that they don't beiieve in Santa Claus and don't believe that the myth really shapes childrens behavior. That's a debate worth having.

In Stone's anthology, I learned about Henry Wallace. Before I had only seen his name next to FDR. I didn't know that back in the 1940's that there were progressives that were talking the talk and walking the walk. Especially one that might have been President had the Democratic convention been held open another 30 seconds. It's not that I think the U.S. is evil notwithstanding a recent PPP poll that says 25% of Republicans think that secession is an alright idea. I just think that uncomfortable truths have been allowed to shape an American persona that never really existed.

Were Americans steeped in the real history of the Spanish American War, would we have been so anxious to run over to Iraq? Would the most likely genesis of Christianity change any believers mind especially about the certainty of life after death? What about the most likely truth about most of the Old Testament stories? These most likely outcomes are believed by the majority of Israelis today. So how is it that we in this country can continue to justify our actions based on stories that were mostly made up?

But why is asking these questions make you a bad person? I couch my approach to the WWII issues similarly to a parent getting the story of why a lamp was broken from two siblings. After hearing one siblings explanation, I am simply saying "Now what's your story". The history I was taught never ask the second question. And to torture the metaphor a little more, I am now saying "That sounds compelling and it may have had something to do with the lamp breaking".

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Greg said,.....What I do is try to get at the unvarnished truth. For much of my life I was fed the usual set of "facts". The U.S. was a force for good and anyone that opposed us was evil......----------------------------------------------------Greg, I was presented with the same "facts" as you. As I matured I was able to look past some of the nationalistic pride and bragging to see a more balanced picture. I went through a stage like yours when I was young as I learned that it is an imperfect world. However, unlike you, I regained my balance and was then able to see the good in America too. America's virtues are legend compared with nations that preceded us. So, one does have to make some choices in their outlook.

If one is ever married they quickly learn that part of the deal is to stand by your spouse, right or wrong. You can't mold people to fit your own preferences and if you can't overlook your wife's weaknesses and play up her strengths then you won't be married long. Love is what allows that to work. Just as one can love a wife or husband they can love their country too. Love means that you will have a bias and it shows through, and when that love is missing it shows through also. Nathan Hale's last words, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country!" Amen to that.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You may find out your wife is imperfect. That is one thing. But you can still love her but know that she cannot tell you the truth about how many pairs of shoes that she bought. The wise husband will know his and take the proper measure in order to stay out of the poor house. You owe it to yourself and to her to understand the truth about things. That way your decisions about the direction that you should take will be well informed and you won't be broadsided by "I thought you knew that I didn't know how much money I was spending on shoes."

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"Hard work in itself is not ultimately valued in capitalism, as you seem to suggest. In capitalism, value is measured in wealth. The whole object of the game is to acquire wealth... "

"If our system valued 'staying busy' as much as you [Nancy] suggest, it would be coal miners and enlisted soldiers receiving all the fame, wealth, and glory."

"The idea of holding manual labor on a pedestal as a thing to be valued in and of itself, irrespective of wealth acquired as a result, is a Marxist concept. Any similarities between that and Christian egalitarianism aren’t surprising."

I am truly astonished Zach. I must question the values under which you were brought up. I was brought up under very strict values, both Jewish and Catholic and a very capitalist stern father who demanded respect of others, and among the things that could get me belted was to take that view of work. We had maids in my house and my mother once slapped me quite hard for being disrespectful to them, although I have to admit that many other Mexicans did treat their service (I was not allowed to use the word servants) as a lesser people. My mother left more money to her maid than she left me because she still had a kid in college.

No Zach, I was always taught that the thing to value most in life is hard work. Without hard work nothing else is possible.

That view of yours is in part what I mean by our society having lost many of its traditional values, the very values that made it great.

Returning to your saying that "Hard work in itself is not ultimately valued in capitalism," to the extent that that is true, and I am not conceding that it is except possibly in part, that is precisely why I've argued for nearly two years about the importance of moral values that only religion offers, unless you prefer that the government give them to you like is increasingly happening. Remember that markets and capitalism are just a method of organizing, rationing and allocating work and its products, and like any other process it can be abused or used wisely. It is up to the people and their moral values to decide what is best or to leave it to an ever growing government to decide for them, including their values.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Xavier, we must make an effort to closely read what we each write; we must strive not to misrepresent each other’s views.

Not once—ever—did I say that the values I detailed in that post applied to either my values or those with which I was raised. Instead, I said that the capitalist system itself values certain things in that it rewards them. Hard work ALONE is not valued above financial success; coal miners do not benefit a great deal from capitalism. If an INDIVIDUAL values hard work, he/she is far more likely to succeed in a capitalist system because hard work is an excellent TOOL (though hardly the only tool) by which one can achieve financial success, the TRUE value of capitalism.

You even support this view by noting that “markets and capitalism are just a method of organizing, rationing and allocating work and its products, and like any other process it can be abused or used wisely. It is up to the people and their moral values to decide what is best or to leave it to an ever growing government to decide for them, including their values.” You just separated what capitalism values from what people value, as I have.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zach, I did understand fully well what you said in p685 and here. In part I took the liberty here, perhaps tactically not very smartly, to try to drive home the importance of morality in modulating capitalism--another word from engineering, this one meaning "exert a modifying or controlling influence on"--so to repeat, the importance of Judeo Christian morality as a modifying and controlling influence on capitalism. I did it more for the sake of others but to some degree you too. In the net page I'll have a longer explanatory post where I also try to cover the role of Christinity versus the Enllightenment.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I would like to chime in hear. Is there any evidence that Judeo Christian moral systems are better at CONSISTENTLY reigning in the sometimes exploitive excesses of capitalism. John D. Rockefeller was by all accounts a pious and religious person. However that did not stop him from the anticompetitve behavior that gave rise to the Sherman antitrust laws. It was government ultimately that applied a consistent "moral" standard as to how to compete.

I would expect your rejoinder is that he did not know how to compete and used the practices that were available at the time. But how good is a moral system that would not teach the real harm that was done to a competitor that was put out of a business that he may have worked harder in building than Rockefeller did.

There is laundry list of behaviors that in some cases cost people their lives as some clever capitalist sought to squeeze the last dollar out a worker. While religious frameworks supply rough outlines for moral behavior, the rules or their various interpretations are so pliable that they become useless in the rough and tumble of business under capitalism.That's why we have the square jawed government to act as ultimate referee.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zack,I have followed along on this thread and I don't remember ever seeing anyone acknowledge the need for capital equally as much as hard work. Unless one learns the value of building up capital they will never be a capitalist no mater how hard they are willing to work. Check out the Korean entrepreneurs making good with small market store or Indians making it good at running motels. None of them would have ever got started if they were from a culture that believed in spending every penny they have.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

GregI suggest you do a bit of research concerning John D. Rockefeller before you try to paint him as a ruthless business man who would destroy you because he coveted what you had.Rockefeller offered a fair market price to all the competitors he bought out, either through cash or shares in stock. Many got rich beyond their dreams. It's true that he did so with the warning that they would be bankrupted if they did not sell and their property bought up at a much cheaper price at auction, so they sold for the fair price he offered. Many of his most ardent detractors decided that it made more business sense to sell.It is not alleged that upon acquiring a refinery he fired all the workers and replaced them with his own, though he had over 100,000 employees and a duty to them.Far from costing anyone their lives, as you suggest, there is no reason to believe that his actions ever cost anyone their livelihood.You want to make it appear that because the man was rich and a Christian, he is by nature a hypocrite. There is nothing that makes Christianity and wealth an oxymoron in the Bible, it's how you obtain your wealth and how you use your wealth that is important to Christianity.Remember his philanthropic nature was far greater than you could ever fantasize about, and he began this nature with his first paycheck, long before he was wealthy.In an ironic twist the Sherman Antitrust laws that broke his trust into many smaller companies made him richer than he ever dreamed. He used a good portion of this money for the good of the poor, and in particular poor black people.By the way the government didn't do this because he had done something wrong, they interjected because they want to be the ones to reap that sort of profit.A private citizen with that much clout absolutely galls them.